Sounds silly to close off a freeway... almost as silly as costing the economy an estimated $300 million per day because they don't like a law that was passed and deemed constitutional by SCOTUS. Instead of, "I'm taking my ball and going home," we've got, "I'm taking my ball and burning your house down."

Oh please, Dogen. You can't cost the private sector money by cutting off government services! We all know big government is a drag on the economy. This is why people are making money hand over fist like never before since the shutdown, without the burden of many public services or paid meteorologists.

Some people know how to work the system. FDA shut down? Sweeeet._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2014Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:03 am Post subject:

What it shows is the government taking active steps to try to scare the public into thinking the planet's gravity will shut off if Papa Government isn't funded to the maximum extent possible. Federal employees are taking active steps to block access to public land, even lands operated privately, when it would actually cost less money to just let them be. Federal websites aren't just disconnected from the internet due to lack of funding; they're still up and running, just with redirect pages pretty much saying 'sorry, our website is totally down because Republicans.'

And considering the legislative gymnastics involved in getting Obamacare to the president's desk without a single Republican vote, it's pretty amusing to watch the Democrats cry about the audacity of the Republicans in response.

What it shows is the government taking active steps to try to scare the public into thinking the planet's gravity will shut off if Papa Government isn't funded to the maximum extent possible.

Yes, and this is clearly the REAL national tragedy here. This accusation can't be an unimportant distraction or a misinterpretation of events, because I mean you believe it and you're not easily misled.

Quote:

Federal employees are taking active steps to block access to public land, even lands operated privately, when it would actually cost less money to just let them be.

Those operations may be carried out privately but they are still sitting on public lands that have been closed by the shutdown. As for costing the government more money to enforce the shutdown than to let people go willy-nilly all over public lands without doing anything, yes that is what happens when you have to shut down the fucking government and enforce said shutdown. If the government cannot operate those parks, they are not automatically open to the public. And in that sense "the public" includes private entities operating those historic farms whose plight you genuinely care so much about.

Quote:

Federal websites aren't just disconnected from the internet due to lack of funding; they're still up and running, just with redirect pages pretty much saying 'sorry, our website is totally down because Republicans.'

They don't blame the Republicans. Is that what you're reduced to in order to try and make this case? Blatant lies? Tell me you don't actually believe this.

Those redirect pages are up because the services that those websites would have provided are not being done. The people who would have maintained and updated the content and processed the forms on those sites are not there. Leaving the sites up as if normal, but unmanned, is worse than useless; it's misleading and dangerous. People need to know that they can't rely on those services.

You do not know anything about this. Why are you even talking? Do you think we enjoy watching you embarrass yourself with these displays of angry ignorance? It's not fun, it's sad.

Quote:

And considering the legislative gymnastics involved in getting Obamacare to the president's desk without a single Republican vote...

Considering all the months of diplomatic cross-aisle gymnastics Democrats tried in vain to attempt to get even that single Republican vote they were denied, and all the ways the Republicans tried to keep THAT from even going to the floor? All the compromises offered and refused, point-blank? The desperate pleading for actual good-faith negotiations to take place? The final bill itself is a dramatic compromise attempt, despite the final lack of Republican votes!
Point is, the Republicans didn't vote for it because they were determined to try and make Obama lose it, not because they actually disagreed with the content of the bill. For fuck's sake, it was Romneycare before it was Obamacare, it was Gingrichcare after it was Obamacare, and it was Republicare back in the 90s! Everything about the bill is a watered-down version of progressive healthcare reform (watered down enough to be CONSERVATIVE healthcare reform in years past!) in an all-out attempt to court bipartisan support that the Republicans didn't want to materialize, no matter what. The problem is not that the Democrats used legislative options to force a vote, the problem is that they had to do this because the Republicans didn't want them to vote in the first place despite every attempt to have them join in the process. They refused to do their jobs then, and they're refusing to do their jobs now. Unlike your crazy-land conspiracy of miffing sightseers, this one is real and has been explicitly described by the Republicans themselves.

Let's not forget that the Republicans had a period recently where THEY captured both houses and the White House for years. They did not balance the budget (FAR from it) nor reform healthcare. They didn't do those things because they don't actually care about them. And now we're seeing that they don't even care about running the country.
But oh my goodness, those mean old Democrats won't single out national parks and memorials for special treatment when the government is shut down! OH, IT IS TO SWOON!

Quote:

... it's pretty amusing to watch the Democrats cry about the audacity of the Republicans in response.

Perhaps you don't understand the situation. That's certainly the impression I get from all your gripes. Here's the deal:

THE REPUBLICANS CAN VOTE TO REPEAL THE ACA WHENEVER THEY WANT. THERE IS NO DEADLINE FOR THAT.
But they willfully chose to attach it to the spending bill in order to artificially create a deadline, with the government itself as a hostage. The spending bill must pass or the government stops working. They literally put the gutting of the ACA above the running of government. They have adopted the position that killing it is more important than governing. They made the killing the ACA a condition of simply operating the federal government. Is this sinking in?

All this because they do not have the votes to successfully repeal the act in a proper legislative manner. Because the rest of the democratically elected legislature in both Houses and the democratically elected President disagree with them. They couldn't even convince SCOTUS that it was anti-American enough to be struck down.
They have broken our representative government to try and kill this law, a law which will save us money and improve the state of our healthcare system and benefits everybody. Unlike the dozens of Republican-led attempted repeals or guttings, the ACA actually passed by going to the floor and voting. The majority won. They majority still wins on that question. This is how the government works. The majority in both houses would pass a clean spending bill if only Boehner would let the Senate's version get to the floor for a vote, but he refuses to let that happen. He won't let them vote on the bill. Just like they Republicans didn't want a vote on the ACA. They know they were going to lose because they do not have the votes to win, so they've decided that nobody can do anything unless they get their ludicrous demands. You should be scared to death of the precedent this kind of thing sets, especially if the Republicans succeed. There is nothing to stop Democrats from doing the same thing in the future about something you love and they hate. The only thing that would kill the tendency to use these nuclear options is knowing that it will kill the party's popular support. Which is a shameful state of affairs, because apparently wrecking the economy and putting lives at risk is not enough.

But hey, they want to talk about fiscal responsibility, right? They already put us into a sequester because they didn't want to play ball and govern. That hasn't been fixed. They had our nation's credit rating downgraded because they didn't want to play ball and govern. That hasn't been fixed. They are on the record as saying they will not work with the President no matter what, and that they will keep the government shut down until the President caves in to the minority party's demands even if that means making us default on our debt for the first time in history, which would be unconstitutional and send the already fragile world economy reeling just when it was starting to get steady on its feet again. Hell, the shutdown has already causedfunding for millions of American women and children to be cut off from nutritional programs that help alleviate the effects of their poverty.
You want to talk all huffy about public park access? Grow some perspective, kid.

You are not an idiot. Arguing like this and talking the way you do about this kind of thing is completely beneath you. For whatever reason, on subjects like this you shut off your brain and adopt the anti-reality stance. You are already veering into Thy Brilliance territory, posting brain-damaged stuff that only serves to annoy and sadden the rest of us. Is that where you wanted to be?
You can bring all the petty, paranoid blogspew about grand government conspiracies to annoy tourists that you want. But your ridiculous ideas will be met with the only appropriate response: ridicule. Eventually, even your ignorant attacks against the only party trying to actually do what they were elected to do will be met with the only appropriate response: they will be ignored.

What it shows is the government taking active steps to try to scare the public into thinking the planet's gravity will shut off if Papa Government isn't funded to the maximum extent possible. Federal employees are taking active steps to block access to public land, even lands operated privately, when it would actually cost less money to just let them be. Federal websites aren't just disconnected from the internet due to lack of funding; they're still up and running, just with redirect pages pretty much saying 'sorry, our website is totally down because Republicans.'

All sad, silly (and sometimes imaginary*) things which could have been avoided if we'd just passed a budget. Remind me who it was again that refused to pass a budget unless it included defunding or delaying a law that was passed and held Constitutional by the Supreme Court? Was it Republicans? Weeeell... some of them. If I recall correctly it was just House Republicans. Apparently Senate Republicans think $300 million dollars per day, and looking like god damn idiots to the 72% of Americans who opposed shutting down the government, isn't worth whatever benefit comes from shutting down the government... what is that benefit, anyway? They're actually making their lives more difficult.

Quote:

And considering the legislative gymnastics involved in getting Obamacare to the president's desk without a single Republican vote, it's pretty amusing to watch the Democrats cry about the audacity of the Republicans in response.

Oh snap! You laid the legislative procedural maneuvers smackdown! I wish this bill had been reviewed by the Supreme Court, so that substantive grievances which may make it unconstitutional could be aired. I think you see where this is going.

And it's not just Democrats "crying." It's three quarters of the entire fucking country that opposes this maneuver, and any attempt to hold the debt ceiling hostage. Think about that. NRA members, Walmart shoppers, CEOs of Wall Street banks, Sierra Club members, Planned Parenthood supporters... all pissed off at the Republican party because of House Republicans. It's been a long time since I was in the majority!

*

The EPA says in a tiny banner on its website (which totally still works) only, "The federal government is currently shut down. The EPA website and social media channels will not be updated until the federal government reopens. En la actualidad, el cierre del Gobierno Federal estŠ en vigor."

Oh shit, NASA is the first one I've found that actually has a redirect! "Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not available. We sincerely regret this inconvenience." That just screams, "blame Republicans!" Okay, maybe it sounds more like, "Congress get your act together," but I think we all - even you, apparently - know who's holding up the CR.

The notice on the FBI's (totally functional) website is just one of five messages on its scrolling marquee. How blatantly anti-Republican can they be?

DHS has a simple banner (on it's functioning website) that says, "Due to th lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed." But it's a link! ... to a slightly more detailed, totally anti-Republican, 4 sentence notice about not being able to process transactions until after funding is restored.

The CDC's harsh, partisan smear campaign consist entirely of this statement (on it's fully functional website): "Due to the lapse in government funding, only web sites supporting excepted functions will be updated unless otherwise funded. As a result, the information on this website may not be up to date, the transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted."

The Department of the Interior also has a fully functional website with a small banner at the top...

It may be easier for Mindslicer to list all these partisan hack websites that really, totally exist than for me to visit every government agency only to find the vast majority are up, running, and spend little time talking about the shutdown and none talking about Republicans.

_________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

I like it when I post and then I look up and someone else posted the same thing. It's like a one-two punch.

WOC and Dogen, like Shrek and Donkey. Except when it comes to superhero costumes._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Sounds like Joplin has at least one deeply disturbed, very inept angry person._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2014Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:44 am Post subject:

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:

Quote:

Federal employees are taking active steps to block access to public land, even lands operated privately, when it would actually cost less money to just let them be.

Those operations may be carried out privately but they are still sitting on public lands that have been closed by the shutdown. As for costing the government more money to enforce the shutdown than to let people go willy-nilly all over public lands without doing anything, yes that is what happens when you have to shut down the fucking government and enforce said shutdown. If the government cannot operate those parks, they are not automatically open to the public. And in that sense "the public" includes private entities operating those historic farms whose plight you genuinely care so much about.

Sorry, even you can't deny the selective nature of this. They're not only closing parks, they're closing parts of highways so people can't take pictures of national monuments. Really? If the government can do that, why not close the entire interstate highway system if all federally owned public land is inaccessible during the shutdown? The answer is that's a step too far. Americans need to be visibly inconvenienced by the shutdown, not crippled.

Quote:

Quote:

Federal websites aren't just disconnected from the internet due to lack of funding; they're still up and running, just with redirect pages pretty much saying 'sorry, our website is totally down because Republicans.'

They don't blame the Republicans. Is that what you're reduced to in order to try and make this case? Blatant lies? Tell me you don't actually believe this.

I said they 'pretty much' say that. They say the site is down because of the shutdown, and the administration and MSM pick up where they leave off and blame the Republicans. Even your shrill screed does this.

Quote:

Those redirect pages are up because the services that those websites would have provided are not being done. The people who would have maintained and updated the content and processed the forms on those sites are not there. Leaving the sites up as if normal, but unmanned, is worse than useless; it's misleading and dangerous. People need to know that they can't rely on those services.

And a 404 error would not do this how?

Quote:

Quote:

And considering the legislative gymnastics involved in getting Obamacare to the president's desk without a single Republican vote...

The final bill was a dramatic compromise between Pelosi and a few hesitant Democrats to make sure they'd all be on board, since the Republicans wanted nothing to do with the legislation.

And, yes, the Republicans didn't give a crap about balancing the budget when they were in charge, although they did pass Medicare part D (somehow while simultaneously not caring a whit about healthcare) along the way.

And, yes, they didn't vociferously oppose Romneycare, passed by a Republican governor (who is about as conservative as Michael Bloomberg, once called a Republican as well) in one of the bluest states in the nation because it was a state-level policy and states theoretically got to handle that sort of thing on their own.

Quote:

The problem is not that the Democrats used legislative options to force a vote, the problem is that they had to do this because the Republicans didn't want them to vote in the first place despite every attempt to have them join in the process. They refused to do their jobs then, and they're refusing to do their jobs now.

The House attempted to pass two partial funding bills in which all Republicans voted yea, but since they needed a 2/3rds majority to pass, there were enough nay votes from Democrats to prevent it. Not that it would have mattered; Senator Reid has said such bills won't even be put to a vote in the Senate and the President says he would veto them anyway. So, interestingly, Democrats have voted against funding things they're mad aren't being funded, and other Democrats won't even get to for for or against them, and Obama would veto bills funding things he's mad aren't funded. But it's cool, the president has said he's willing to negotiate -- but only after the Republicans give him upwards of $4 trillion and another debt ceiling raise, the latter of which he quite eloquently railed against when he was a senator. Now Team Blue sycophants are hoping he'll just invoke the 14th Amendment and declare the U.S. to have a no-limit credit card forever. I wonder how Senator Obama and his cheerleaders would have felt about that if Bush had done the same thing in 2006...

Also, the sequester was voted for by Democrats as well as Republicans, and signed into law by the president, a Democrat, but it's TEAM RED'S fault it actually happened? The 'blame' (if you want to call it that) falls on both parties.

Ultimately, this may be a teachable moment for the country. The ZOMG SUHKWESTERR!! was preceded by so much doomsaying from various talking heads both in and out of government, from both sides of the aisle, but apparently the nation has managed to survive an eventual 2.4% percent reduction in overall funding. Surprisingly resilient for an economy that we hear is so desperately fragile despite the Messiah's gentle, magical touch lo these past five years.

Funding will have to return eventually, but this may be a good moment to examine which functions of government could actually be left to the private sector. Canada and Great Britain, for example, have privatized their air traffic control systems, and there are serious talks of doing the same in America. This is not a bad thing, and if it takes something as drastic as this to slow down the rush of government expansion that's happened under BOTH parties for the last couple of decades, then so be it. It won't last forever. The last shutdown in the 90's didn't cause the planet to hurtle into the sun, and this one won't either.

I actually looked up my login and password from years ago just to tell you what a total prat you are.
What is it about politics that completely sabotages your thought processes? Your posts on this are the equivalent of picking a fight and then punching yourself in the face until the other guy gives up.

The House attempted to pass two partial funding bills in which all Republicans voted yea, but since they needed a 2/3rds majority to pass, there were enough nay votes from Democrats to prevent it. Not that it would have mattered; Senator Reid has said such bills won't even be put to a vote in the Senate and the President says he would veto them anyway. So, interestingly, Democrats have voted against funding things they're mad aren't being funded, and other Democrats won't even get to for for or against them, and Obama would veto bills funding things he's mad aren't funded.

Umm... yeah. They're proposing bills that will fund all the glaringly obvious things they're not funding now because they're holding the budget hostage to the social ideology of one political party because they can't pass their legislation any other way. So, go figure that no one wants to make it easier for them to pretend like shutting down the government is no big deal, when everyone else (including Senate Republicans) tried to avoid it while they careened into it.

Quote:

I said they 'pretty much' say that. They say the site is down because of the shutdown, and the administration and MSM pick up where they leave off and blame the Republicans. Even your shrill screed does this.

So when you say they were "pretty much saying, 'sorry, our website is totally down because Republicans,'" what you meant was that they were saying nothing of the sort and other people (the MSM, the administration, a majority of Americans, etc) were blaming the Republicans? Well, that makes sense.

Quote:

Also, the sequester was voted for by Democrats as well as Republicans, and signed into law by the president, a Democrat, but it's TEAM RED'S fault it actually happened? The 'blame' (if you want to call it that) falls on both parties.

A lot of partisan politics is bullshit, but this shutdown is pretty much all yours. I mean... House Republicans tried to defund the ACA 40 times, and when that didn't work (read: the democratic process) they shoved a wrench in the federal budget._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2014Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:50 pm Post subject:

Dogen wrote:

Mindslicer wrote:

The House attempted to pass two partial funding bills in which all Republicans voted yea, but since they needed a 2/3rds majority to pass, there were enough nay votes from Democrats to prevent it. Not that it would have mattered; Senator Reid has said such bills won't even be put to a vote in the Senate and the President says he would veto them anyway. So, interestingly, Democrats have voted against funding things they're mad aren't being funded, and other Democrats won't even get to for for or against them, and Obama would veto bills funding things he's mad aren't funded.

Umm... yeah. They're proposing bills that will fund all the glaringly obvious things they're not funding now because they're holding the budget hostage to the social ideology of one political party because they can't pass their legislation any other way. So, go figure that no one wants to make it easier for them to pretend like shutting down the government is no big deal, when everyone else (including Senate Republicans) tried to avoid it while they careened into it.

And all those House Democrats who voted against those bills will have to do is explain that to voters a year from November. The Republicans failed to compromise by relinquishing all of their bargaining leverage, so the Democrats just had to go on record and vote against funding parts of the government that they nonetheless consider vital. It'll be interesting to see which team benefits more, assuming the shutdown and sequester are even remembered by enough of the voting public to matter. Considering what reelection rates are like for the House, I doubt many of them on either team will lose their jobs over it.

Quote:

Quote:

I said they 'pretty much' say that. They say the site is down because of the shutdown, and the administration and MSM pick up where they leave off and blame the Republicans. Even your shrill screed does this.

So when you say they were "pretty much saying, 'sorry, our website is totally down because Republicans,'" what you meant was that they were saying nothing of the sort and other people (the MSM, the administration, a majority of Americans, etc) were blaming the Republicans? Well, that makes sense.

Seriously? If the services those websites provide are non-essential enough to not be updated, shouldn't the servers hosting those sites not be so 'essential' that they need to be on? A 'unable to connect to the website' message on a web browser suffices to inform the user that the website is unavailable. Having the servers on requires active security from hackers and the like, whereas shutting them off renders them immune from such attacks. Even when the government is shut down, they waste money because they need the people to see just how horrible life is going to be without them.

Quote:

Quote:

Also, the sequester was voted for by Democrats as well as Republicans, and signed into law by the president, a Democrat, but it's TEAM RED'S fault it actually happened? The 'blame' (if you want to call it that) falls on both parties.

A lot of partisan politics is bullshit, but this shutdown is pretty much all yours. I mean... House Republicans tried to defund the ACA 40 times, and when that didn't work (read: the democratic process) they shoved a wrench in the federal budget.

A budget the Democrats in the Senate had refused to even pass for four years (talk about people not doing their jobs, right?) And I'm not wholly on Team Red's side here. Neither party has shown itself to be trustworthy when in control of all the levers of government. Both parties have spent excessively and grown the government to suit their particular whims. Recall Nancy Pelosi strutting around with the big gavel crowing about Team Blue's victory in 2008, and Obama telling Republicans they can come along for the ride as a glorious era of prosperity is swept in, but they would have to sit in the back seat. (Note: Team Red wasn't much better when they won historic victories in 2010.) It speaks volumes about all involved in Washington when partisan political gridlock is the best way to slow the growth of government, even when one party is supposed to be all about that.

All I was pointing out is the spiteful way in which the government has responded to the shutdown.

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

Mindslicer, if the democrats had, say, when Bush was President, demanded the war in iraq be ended before they agreed to pass a budget or they'd cause a government shutdown, or demanded that capital gains be raised equal to income tax levels or they'd cause a government shutdown-

Would you have considered that a legitimate tactic?

Somehow I rather doubt this.

You've lost, dude. Somehow, the Republicans don't seem to understand the definition of insanity (As shown by their repteated DEFUND OBAMACAAAREEEEEEEEE votes), and somehow thought this would turn out better for them than when they tried the exact. Same. Thing. in 1995.

And with house republicans saying things like that, claiming WAAAH OMG HOW DARE PEOPLE BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR SOMETHING ONLY THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING seems childish, and, well... akin to the temper tantrums the house GOP are currently throwing._________________"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger